Molter [ENJOINED] v. Michigan, State of et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LUCAS MOLTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRINITY HEALTH,
Defendants.
___________________________ /
Case No. 25-11812
F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S NOVEMBER 7, 2025 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
(ECF NO. 129) AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (ECF NO. 128)
After Plaintiff Lucas Benjamin-Bir Molter filed this case pro se
and in forma pauperis (IFP), the court dismissed all but one ADA claim
against Defendant Trinity Health St. Mary Mercy. ECF No. 10. Molter
then filed about 60 miscellaneous documents, causing court staff to
“needlessly expend[ ] the limited time and resources…trying to figure
out what, if anything, these documents are trying to communicate.”
ECF No. 73, PageID.437. The court thus imposed filing restrictions,
and then referred the case to the Magistrate Judge for all pretrial
proceedings. 	Id.
I. 	November 7, 2025 Report & Recommendation
Case 4:25-cv-11812-FKB-EAS ECF No. 131, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 6

2
Currently before the court is Magistrate Judge Stafford’s
November 7, 2025, Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 129).
Magistrate Judge Stafford recommends that Molter’s IFP status be
revoked, and that if he does not pay his filing fee within 30 days, his
complaint should be dismissed. The court has reviewed the record and
the pleadings. Neither party has filed objections. “[T]he failure to
object to the magistrate judge’s report[] releases the Court from its duty
to independently review the matter.” 	Hall v. Rawal, 2012 WL 3639070
(E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985)). The court nevertheless agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
recommended course of action. Even after multiple warnings by the
court, Molter “clogged the court’s docket with frivolous and often
incomprehensible motions; has harassed the [Magistrate Judge’s and
the undersigned]’s staff with unsolicited emails; and has violated
orders, including to stop filing motions during the stay he requested.”
See ECF No. 129, PageID.726. Molter was warned that he would face
sanctions such as those the Magistrate Judge recommends if he
continued to file motions in violation of the stay he requested, yet
continued to file documents anyway. 	See ECF No. 126; ECF No. 127
Case 4:25-cv-11812-FKB-EAS ECF No. 131, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 6

3
(both filed in violation of the stay). The report and recommendation
explains the relevant standard for when IFP status may be revoked,
and the court agrees that the standard has been met in this case.
The court notes that Molter perhaps attempted to file objections to
the report and recommendation (see ECF No. 130, filed Nov. 10, 2025),
however, the court put Molter on notice that it did not accept that filing
when it denied leave to file those objections because he a) did not
actually attach any objections to his briefing, and b) his filing did not
comply with the order on filing restrictions entered by this court. 	See
Text-Only Order following ECF No. 130 (filed Nov. 12, 2025); ECF No.
73 (filing restrictions). No follow-up filing was received and the
deadline to properly file objections has expired.
Therefore, the court REVOKES Molter’s IFP status. If he does
not pay the filing fee within 30 days of entry of this order, his complaint
will be dismissed. The referral to the Magistrate Judge is therefore
temporarily SUSPENDED until the filing fee is paid or until further
order of the court. If Molter pays the filing fee, the referral for all
pretrial proceedings shall be automatically reinstated without further
order of the court.
Case 4:25-cv-11812-FKB-EAS ECF No. 131, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of 6

4
II. 	Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 128)
One other matter: Molter also filed objections (ECF No. 128) on
November 3, 2025, to Judge Stafford’s Order striking his motions filed
in violation of the stay (ECF No. 125). When a litigant objects to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter, they may serve
and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a
copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge must then consider any
timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the magistrate
judge’s order that is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 	Id. 	A
magistrate judge’s factual findings will be reversed only when “the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 	United States v. Mabry,
518 F.3d 442, 449 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. United States
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). A magistrate judge’s legal
conclusions will be reversed only if they fail to apply or misapply
relevant statues, case law, or rules of procedure. 	Bisig v. Time Warner
Cable, Inc., 940 F.3d 205, 219 (6th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). A
district court may not reverse a magistrate judge’s ruling simply
because the court would have decided the matter differently. 	Sedgwick
Case 4:25-cv-11812-FKB-EAS ECF No. 131, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page 4 of 6

5
Ins. v. F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Systems, 47 F.Supp.3d 536, 538
(E.D. Mich. 2014).
Procedurally, Molter’s filing does not comply with the court’s order
at ECF No. 73, and can be denied on that basis alone. However, on the
merits, the objection also fails. Judge Stafford struck a variety of
motions that Molter filed in violation of a stay entered at Molter’s
request. 	See ECF No. 88 (requesting an “indefinite” stay of
proceedings); ECF No. 91 (entering a stay until Nov. 3, 2025). Molter
filed approximately 17 motions in violation of that stay. He now objects
to some of these motions having been struck in the order at ECF No.
125 because, he says, his motions were filed in compliance with ECF
No. 73 (imposing filing restrictions). ECF No. 128, PageID.689. But of
course, the filing restrictions at ECF No. 73 did not preclude the
possibility of additional, later filing restrictions (such as those imposed
by a stay of proceedings). Molter was required to follow all further
orders of the court; compliance with ECF No. 73 is a necessary but not
sufficient condition of obtaining relief. Molter was warned that filing
motions during the stay was impermissible, but continued to do so.
ECF No. 108. Judge Stafford also considered Molter’s filings on the
Case 4:25-cv-11812-FKB-EAS ECF No. 131, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page 5 of 6

6
merits when the substance of his motion related specifically to the
administration of the stay itself. 	See ECF No. 125, PageID.660.
Nothing in the Magistrate Judge’s orders precluded Molter from filing
his motions when the stay expired, and striking them was not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. The objections are OVERRULED.
SO ORDERED.
Date: November 26, 2025 	s/F. Kay Behm
F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-11812-FKB-EAS ECF No. 131, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page 6 of 6